 | Peak Oil Booklet - Chapter 4: What Should We Do Now? | The Oil Drum | The Status of Canadian Oil Production |  |
The contents below are paid advertisements. Their appearance does not imply an endorsement by The Oil Drum.
“The infrastructure of suburbia can be described as the greatest misallocation of resources in the history of the world.”
—JH Kunstler
Search The Oil Drum with Google
User login
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
Personnel
- Editors: Prof. Goose, Heading Out, Stuart Staniford, Nate Hagens
- DrumBeat Editor: Leanan
- Contributors: ace, Engineer-Poet, Gail the Actuary, jeffvail, JoulesBurn, Khebab, Robert Rapier
- TOD:Local: Glenn
- TOD:Europe: Chris Vernon, Euan Mearns, Francois Cellier, Jerome a Paris, Luís de Sousa, Rembrandt, Rune Likvern, Ugo Bardi
- TOD:Canada: benk, Libelle
- TOD:ANZ: Big Gav, Phil Hart, aeldric
- Technician: Super G
Recently on TOD:World
TOD:Local
- Summer Streets a Success!
- Plan for Hydro-Fracture Drilling for Unconventional Natural Gas in Upstate New York
- Enjoying Life Close to Home: Fun Streets
TOD:Europe
- Russia: There Is Life After Peak Oil
- Should EROEI be the most important criterion our society uses to decide how it meets its energy needs?
- Oilwatch Monthly - August 2008
TOD:Canada
- Compressed Air Energy Storage - How viable is it?
- Oil Megaproject Update (July 2008)
- Weekend Energy Listening: Wind Power with Paul Gipe
TOD:ANZ
Peak Oil Primers
Blogroll
Energy Sites
- The Coming Global Oil Crisis
- Die Off
- Dry Dipstick
- Energy Bulletin
- From the Wilderness
- Life After the Oil Crash
- Peak Oil Crisis
- Peak Oil News and Message Boards
- Powerswitch
- Rigzone
- Matthew Simmons
- Wolf at the Door
Environment & Sustainability Sites
- The Daily Green
- EcoGeek
- Eco Street
- Green Car Congress
- Green Options
- green.alltop.com
- Gristmill
- RealClimate
- Sustainablog
- Treehugger
- WorldChanging
Blogs
- The Big Picture
- Casaubon's Book
- Cleantech Blog
- Clusterf
k Nation (Jim Kunstler) - The Cost of Energy
- Ecological Economics
- David Strahan
- Econbrowser
- The Energy Blog
- Entropy Production
- Environmental Economics
- European Tribune
- GraphOilology
- jeffvail.net
- The Mess That Greenspan Made
- Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis
- Mobjectivist
- Peak Energy (Australia)
- Peak Energy (USA)
- R-Squared
- Resource Insights
Organizations
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
GAIA Host Collective
Also Mobile species can and probably do move into the area totally unaware of the radiation only to die later. I imagine we don't have a reproducing resident population of species.
Cid, no offense intended but what you 'imagine' is not relevant. Many still 'imagine' our moon to be made of green cheese, while some still cling to the notion that the earth is flat...:)
'Imagine' my hand with most of it's fingers folded into a fist upturned. ;)
Would this imagination be 'Sid indicating his IQ'? :0
How could anyone compete with a schoolyard wit such as yours.
"I imagine we don't have a reproducing resident population of species."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4923342.stm
thats the OLD news article based on the OLD study that the parent post is pointing out that is flawed by pointing to a NEWER study on the same subject.
We can conclude that even though background radiation may be harmful to wildlife, it is far less so than the effects of sustained human habitation. So the articles are both correct.
That just doesn't make any sense. Background radiation is radiation that is present everywhere, all the time. You are never free of background radiation. All life evolved in the presence of background radiation. If you are going to debate the harm of background radiation then you must also include the benefits of background radiation. Background radiation is partially responsible for the divergence of life because is responsible for some, but not all, of the small mutations that make evolution possible.
I think it is pointless to debate the harm background radiation causes. It has always been there and it always will be there. What you must be concerned with is radiation that is above bacground radiation.
Ron Patterson
Deep breath, Ron...it's pretty obvious he meant the radiation from Chernobyl and not normal Earth background radiation. That is to say, if Chernobyl radiation and humans got into a fight about who could kill off more wildlife, humans would win. The animals that seem to be doing better are the larger ones that humans readily kill off or destroy the habitat of...they are doing better against the radiation than they were against the humans, but worse off for having the radiation than they would be without the radiation.
No, you take a deep breath Sub. I am well aware of what he meant. My point was that he was using the wrong term. Background radiation has onely one meaning. You cannot use the term "background radiation" when you are talking about something other than "background radiation". It is a little like using the word "literally" for a metaphore. As in: "We literall beat the crap out of them." That must have stunk up the place.
If you measure the radiation anywhere near Chernoble you will likely get a reading that is above normal background radiation. And if you continue measuring as you move away from Chernoble the radiation will drop until you only measure background radiation. At that point you will have reached the limits of the contaminated area.
Bottom line, you should not use the term literally when you are speaking metaphorically and you should not use the term "background radiation" when you are talking about something other than background radition. Unswearstand?
Ron Patterson
Background radiation is the radiation in the "background" of a given area as opposed to radiation from a specific source. Fallout from a nuclear weapon is considered "background" radiation. Background radiation varies everywhere on earth, particularly related to altitude but also related to other environmental factors.
When they use the term background radiation here they are using it exactly as we used it at the Defense Nuclear Agency and the US Army Nuclear and Chemical Agency when discussing fallout radiation in addition to the natural background radiation.
In short, you seem to be confused about natural background radiation and background radiation.
"The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function." -- Dr. Albert Bartlett
Into the Grey Zone
Actually it seems you do not understand what the term means.
By the false definition you just posted people might as well give up on giger counters cause as soon as radiation is released it becomes background normal and thus harmless.
The actual meaning of background radiation is the very small amount that is Naturally present in the environment. This natural level is what life on this planet has evolved to survive under. When some country sets off a nuke or a nuclear plant has a accident like Chernobyl the immediate area or where the fallout lands becomes many times more radioactive then it would be compared to the normal background level by a artificial means. This is what is commonly referred to as radiation, This is what kills.
Apparently it does not kill that much. At least this is what the article showed.
Thinking in absolutes aren't we?
Sure they might not be on the ground rotting dead, But as the same article showed with the mentioned birds they are suffering by gaining bad mutations and i am sure some might even be suffering from other ailments as well. Or are you focusing too much on the nice picture of that horse?
The terrible myth that radiation is radiation...that all radiation is equivalent...was and is deliberately disseminated to assure public acceptance. Really, nothing of concern here, folks; our carefully selected and hired experts agreee much ado about nothing. Trust that we know best.
Especially, particulate v gasseous sources yield very different outcomes.
"Low-level" and "threshold level" assurances are also mostly the workproduct of spinmeisters.
Also, the successive, daughter products are far less studied yet very troublesome effects are known, just not disseminated. Who besides vested interests will spend the money to disseminate information? especially propaganda?
Recall that the horrendous effects of smoking tobacco were mostly known and disseminated [!] in the 1940s. Yet the data was then quashed and disappeared for 30 more years.
Best to take your own look at the subject.Results will vary with your own diligence and your own evaluation of source.
The scary part is that someone appears to have a vested interest in convincing people that radiation isn't really all that harmful. WTF! Maybe someone wanting to be able to use a new generation of tactical nukes.